Spanking/Physical punishment of children, is it wrong? - General

[QUOTE=mogul20478;42875150]Harm is not the same as pain, or as discipline. Parents theses days are to soft, and as such there kids grow up to be assholes who they are better than everyone else. Sometimes you need a good slap on the ass to put you in line. I got spanking, ands I have no physical scars, no mental scars. It really isn't any kind of "abuse". [editline]15th November 2013[/editline] Also sorry to hear you were abused as a child, that's a real fucking shitty thing to go through, but spankings don't come close to abuse. I was spanked as a child and have no emotional scarring. I am sorry, but if you're being a shitty little asshole, and words aren't effective then the next thing is a good spank.[/QUOTE] All this says to me is that your parents raised you to think it's ok to spank children to put them in line. Who's the asshole now?

Violence is useless. More often than not, it cannot solve any problems but aggravate things. You need to teach your children what she/he did was wrong and why. Violence can make your children defiant especially you use it the first time without taking other measures.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42879990]I invite you to sit down, with a 2 year old, and talk to them about what they did was wrong and why. Please, give it a shot. Then watch when they say "ok" then go RIGHT back to doing what they were doing wrong. Why? Because you can sit down and explain all day long, you can draw diagrams and huge powerpoint presentations, but guess what, they don't process information in the same way, and they don't understand what you're saying in the first place; and guess what, they aren't physically capable of putting 1+1 together and realizing what they did was wrong/dangerous. I got popped as a kid when I was being a little shit, I didn't rebel, i didn't argue. Why? Because my parents stopped hitting me when I turned 6, because I was finally old enough to actually understand "oh hey you're taking my bear away because i ran out of the yard". [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] Again, if you've never had a child of your own, let me be the first to tell you. A 2 year old gives no fucks, they are going to push boundaries, they are going to get themselves injured, it's up to you to prevent the most severe of those injuries (burns from the stove, running in the street, etc) I invite you to attempt to sit down and have a civil discourse with a 2 year old, it's not going to work, but you're free to waste your time as you see fit.[/QUOTE] I was talking about how parents treat a child, not a babe. By the way, you think 3 year old kids are as dumb as those decades ago? Definitely not, as far as I am concerned, 3 year old kids are capable of developing many particular abilities. They can sing, dance and calculate. Most importantly, they can perceive hate and love. If you abuse your 3 year old child, you are sure to leave a bad impression on him/her, which consequently has a negative impact on his/her growth, because father is a jerk. Don't underestimate a 3 year old child.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42881933]I'm not. You do realize that the brain of a 3 year old and the brain of a 6 year old, are MILES apart from each other in terms of capability. "singing, dancing, and calculating" are basic things that any brain can do, we're talking on a more deep level of actual UNDERSTANDING consequences, not just "oh if I touch the stove it's bad" but WHY is touching the stove bad. That's the thing, you can explain it to them, but they really aren't going to get it. It's not going to click. Yes, I think 3 year olds are just as incapable as they were decades ago, do they have more ability with computers/phones/etc; yes, but they still lack the intrinsic understanding behind their actions, and their parents reactions.[/QUOTE] I don't think 3 year old are incapable of understanding your explanation. As long as they are able to speak, they can relate to simple verbal information,provided that 3 year olds can virtually speak. Take your stove for example, why it is bad. You can simply mention some key words, hot, painful. You tell them to the kid. He/she will naturally correlate hot with painful. And that's it, he/she would not touch that again. Kids are esily influenced by verbal information as they are quite receptive. They aren't able to judge whether it is right or wrong ,which is why many kids fear bugs even if they are not ever bitten--parents tell them . So why bother giving a spank?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42892184]Or, you can not be a shitty parent, and keep them from touching the stove in the first place, and just pop them when they are going to touch the hot surface. A light pop will get your point across, and will save you a trip to the ER. Me personally, i'm not going to let my kid touch the stove, nor am I going to let him stick things in an outlet, or anything of that nature, it's not a learning opportunity, it's a shitty time for the kid and the parent. Honestly anyone who'd rather let their kid touch the stove to teach them a lesson, rather than just give them a pop, is way more abusive. Second. No they will not correlate "hot with painful" i've had a 3 year old.. and a 4 year old.. and a 5 year old.. and a 6 year old. That's right, a 6 year old son, I've played the "oh just sit down and talk with him" game and it resulted in "ok dad, i wouldn't do it again" then about 15 min later, BIG FUCKING SURPRISE, he's out there, doing what he was doing in the first place. But, when you gave him a tap, and said hey stop that shit, he didn't go back to doing it. Fucking miracles up in this bitch. As for fear of insects, children are naturally afraid of the unknown. You show them something that they've never seen before, and most are going to be quite fearful. But to a 2 year old, fire doesn't look dangerous, it looks colorful and neat.[/QUOTE] Well for the stove example, instead of hitting them before they touch it why not just let out a scream (screaming like you're scared). It works on adults, why not kids? It's especially good if you're not close enough to get them away from the stove just in time. Why would it be better for a child to not want to do certain things out of fear of being punished? It's like the person who only follows laws when there's law enforcement around. They need constant supervision. But if children are disciplined then they understand why they should not do something, and so they are self-controlled. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;42881933]we're talking on a more deep level of actual UNDERSTANDING consequences, not just "oh if I touch the stove it's bad" but WHY is touching the stove bad. That's the thing, you can explain it to them, but they really aren't going to get it. It's not going to click.[/QUOTE] And that might be the hardest part of disciplining children, getting them to actually understand it, not just memorize certain rules and/or actions. But I still don't see hitting/tapping/whatever a child as being the solution to that. Because what they then could understand is that their parent causes them harm when they do x thing. And that's not the solution because they still don't understand actually why not to touch the stove.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42879990]I got popped as a kid when I was being a little shit, I didn't rebel, i didn't argue. Why? Because my parents stopped hitting me when I turned 6, because I was finally old enough to actually understand "oh hey you're taking my bear away because i ran out of the yard".[/QUOTE] A lot of people haven't been hit and still weren't bad children. What good is your anecdote over anyone else's?

Notice that anybody who argues for physical punishment here had physical punishment used on them as a child (and are also the only ones who think kids will turn out bad without it). Physical punishment is really uncommon here and has been illegal since 1979 (in Finland since 1983, referring to what Orkel said on page 1), there's nothing weird about a parent getting fined or punished in some other way for doing it. The fact that so many people here agree with hitting children is seriously worrying, I don't care if it's a "light pop" you still don't hit a kid what's wrong with you Another interesting fact seems to be that pretty much everyone here who agrees with spanking kids is from a place where it's still legal, I honestly thought it was a thing of the past in most developed countries. The only times I hear about it here is when old people talk about how shitty their childhoods were

[QUOTE=Eric95;42924953]Notice that anybody who argues for physical punishment here had physical punishment used on them as a child (and are also the only ones who think kids will turn out bad without it). Physical punishment is really uncommon here and has been illegal since 1979 (in Finland since 1983, referring to what Orkel said on page 1), there's nothing weird about a parent getting fined or punished in some other way for doing it. The fact that so many people here agree with hitting children is seriously worrying, I don't care if it's a "light pop" you still don't hit a kid what's wrong with you Another interesting fact seems to be that pretty much everyone here who agrees with spanking kids is from a place where it's still legal, I honestly thought it was a thing of the past in most developed countries. The only times I hear about it here is when old people talk about how shitty their childhoods were[/QUOTE] you're implying every child will respond to a specific punishment the same way and physical punishment in any form won't work at all(both of which aren't the case btw)

[QUOTE=lxmach1;42931959]you're implying every child will respond to a specific punishment the same way and physical punishment in any form won't work at all(both of which aren't the case btw)[/QUOTE] I never said it doesn't work, I said it's never necessary or right to do. There are plenty of other ways to teach children what's right or wrong.

[QUOTE=Eric95;42935375]I never said it doesn't work, I said it's never necessary or right to do. There are plenty of other ways to teach children what's right or wrong.[/QUOTE] you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's the best/only way, I'm saying that your argument that there are other ways/that one way is worse than others holds little to no water since all children react to various punishments differently.

Ain't nothin' wrong with it, kid gets a warning & explanation, a second warning, and after that he/she is well-aware of the rules. I got smacked upside the head, I was spanked all the time. My parents always treated [I]me[/I] as an adult. The only time there'd be no warning was if my sister and I started fighting.. got caught fighting a few times and it was always a whupping. I'd rather get punished as a kid, to prevent behavior that gets punishment as an adult. Getting the belt as a kid > Getting a 72-hr b&b at county as a full-grown adult If a child knows the rules, & the moral reasons as to why those rules are right, then chooses to break them.. then they know they're doing so in the expectancy of punishment if caught. "Don't want to get spanked like a little shit, don't act like a little shit" yadig? --- I definitely believe that without physical punishment I would be a pretty shitty person.

One alternative physical punishment is making them do some manual labor, such as sending them to weed the garden I might add. But still I think it's fine, though a few people go too far which is really fucked up.

My children. I want to spank them. [editline]November 23rd, 2013[/editline] [I]Hard.[/I] [editline]November 23rd, 2013[/editline] I [I]want to[/I].